BODY PLEASURE

BODY PLEASURE AND THE ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE

Appeared in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November
1975, pp. 10-20

Abridged, annotated and introduced by J. Hide, January 2001

Annotated and provided with a postscript by Tani Jantsang, January
2001

Introduction by J. Hide

The message of the below abridged version of a 1975 scientific
article by US researcher James Prescott is even more topical now
than it was at the time, because the US and similarly anti-affectionate
cultures have taken harsh steps to repress the message and have
since become increasingly hostile towards the essential modes of
upbringing and treatment that are proposed in this article. AIDS
and the typing of most cases of affectionate interaction with minors
(-18) as 'child sexual abuse' are two factors that have turned the
tide of sexual reform, while there never was such a concept as 'affection
reform'.

Many people will suppose that Western society has experienced a
sexual revolution and we are now liberated. Commercial porn (the
sorry substitute for the real thing) is distributed more freely,
yes; dildos come in more colors, yes; and the decline of literal
Christianity has affected the popularity of the term 'sin', yes
(sin is now known as shame); but these shifts have nothing to do
with what WE mean by sexual and affectionate FREEDOM. Freedom is
demonstrably not unbounded promiscuity, as fundies like to boo us
with, but is instead freedom from the machinations that enslave
us to our morbid love-hate fascination with sexuality and intimacy.
Freedom means: respect for the natural, intuitive handling of sexuality
and affection, which implies openness about relations (ever seen
a monkey hide behind a tree when expressing affection?), physical
intimacy for prepubescent children, sexual activity for adolescents
(as opposed to absurd ages of consent stifling pubescent development),
sexual pluralism, and the eradication of shame and obsession. Freedom
means peace. Freedom has nothing to do with there being more abortions,
more divorces, the cultivation of monstrosities, and more legal
lanes for having quick, secretive sex. The average Westerner is
still obsessed with sex and still wallows in the troubled implications
of the anti-affectionate norm.

(A word about literal Christianity: it is marginal in Dutch society.
The Dutch are secular Christians. It is unimaginable that a Dutch
politician could become more popular, let alone be elected prime
minister, by proclaiming that Jesus saved him. America is a different
culture. Today's paper reports that a high school in Broken Arrow,
Oklahoma expelled a girl of fifteen because the board believed she
was a witch and had made a teacher sick. She had drawn a pentagram
on her hand and had read books on wicca in the school library, while
a PE teacher fell ill.)

Still wondering how we should counter uncalled-for violence? By
building more jails? A real solution is quite simple but unwanted,
and sabotaged by Western governments at the cost of all that is
good and beautiful. Why is this impairment continued; why have the
anti-human norms not been eliminated but, instead, secularized?
There is evidence for a hard-wired cultural addiction to our repression
of (sexual and non-sexual) affection and our glorification of uncalled-for
aggression. For some food for thought, see

Akathartic
and Ophionic States of Being - Alexithymia and Anosognosia (http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/ophion.shtml)
by Tani Jantsang and The
Tree of Destruction: A Synthetic Analysis of Human Societal Problems
Since the Agrarian (http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/tod.shtml) Age by the same author.

In 1980, James Prescott was sacked from his federal position as
Health Scientist Administrator. He has become sharply critical of
the US government, which has failed to listen to his findings despite
loud claims to be concerned with countering the abuse of minors
and rampant violence. Prescott is an adversary of traditionally
religious morals, and that is why he is ignored. Professor of medical
psychology John Money noted in a Playboy interview (July 1990) that
"the only way a researcher can get Government funding is to be against
sex." Prescott's pioneer work was dumped in favor of the mock 'protection
of children (-18)' and the fallacious 'combat of sexual abuse',
which by now equals the combat of (youth) sexuality worldwide. Among
the adverse consequences of this contempt for the truth, Prescott
lists (in a letter to the director of the National Institutes of
Health, 3 September 1999):

"Continued acceleration of violence against children and their
mothers of this nation.

"Retardation of scientific research over the past quarter of a
century on the brain-behavioral consequences of failed bonding in
the mother-infant/child relationship.

"Destruction of my professional and scientific career with terminal
inability to find gainful employment in academic and scientific
research institutions or elsewhere."

Thus, this is not dated research that has been refuted, but research
that has been ignored (except for initial praise) and failed to
be expanded. In Cosmos (1980), Carl Sagan discussed Prescott's
research, evidently giving it credit. He wrote: "More work on this
provocative thesis is clearly needed." The abridged article is a
selection of paragraphs, mostly shortened. Tables, graphs and illustrations
have been left out. J. Hide's notes are placed in [square brackets].
Tani's notes are placed in {doubly curved braces}.

A neuropsychologist contends that the greatest threat to
world peace comes from those nations which have the most depriving
environments for their children and which are most repressive of
sexual affection and female sexuality.

{It's not specifically sexual. What's absent is the cuddling by
the mother (perhaps a lack of oxytocin, but if so, why?), the affection
and hugging and kissing, even breastfeeding. Generations of youth
were raised without breastfeeding, without cuddling or hugging.}

[Dr. Prescott happens to hammer on breastfeeding for at least 2.5
years. In his anthropological statistical analyses, he found that
65 percent of cultures that breastfed their infants 2.5 years or
longer were peaceful. In a review of Mother Nature: A History
of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection by professor Blaffer
Hrdy, Prescott notes that "the bonobo chimpanzee is the most peaceful
and non-violent primate on the planet while homo-sapiens is the
most violent primate on the planet. The bonobo is also the most
nurturing of primates, breastfeeding to about 4 years of age and
body carrying of the male offspring by the mother on her back to
adolescence--but not that long for the daughter. This may well explain
the non-violence of bonobo males against offspring, females and
toward each other." See Prescott's report Breastfeeding
Prevents Depression and Suicide (http://www.violence.de/prescott/bfs/bfs.zip)]

{Neurological articles and even pop mags now emphasize this as
a necessity for babies and children. It's not sexual though; it's
affectionate. I may have been horny when I was 9, but there were
no adults that would have sex with me (trust me, I tried!) - I looked
like a child: that's why. When I was 13, however, I looked like
I do now, see picture in bathing suit on SReds. I was definitely
a grown woman at that age. I even passed for 21. I was also mentally
grown, not babyish or like a kid at all. All my friends at that
age, other ethnics outside my own culture, were adults. This comes
from having responsibilities when even younger, like chores, pitching
in, cooking, building things, helping out. E.g., I could hammer
nails very well when I was 4. I know grown people who miss and hammer
their thumbs. In my culture, any adult that was clumsy, showed a
lack of basic motor skills, was considered retarded. It didn't matter
how smart the person was regarding book knowledge at all. A 'klutz'
was considered a retard. I still feel that way - like the klutz
is innately stupid - what, "put the spoon in the cup" and he has
to halt, think about it, and ask, "Like this?" Gees, stupid!! No
one from my culture was stupid like that, but I see Americans, fully
grown, too stupid to open a car door or hammer a nail into wood.}

[And they are so fond of commemorating every detail of the crucifixion!]

People are constantly in search of new forms of pleasure, yet most
of our 'pleasure' activities appear to be substitutes for the natural
sensory pleasures of touching.

{They also regard even the touching of the arm in boisterous conversation
as either fearful, or they think it's a come-on sexually.}

[One such substitute 'pleasure' activity is a fascination with
violence; another is the consumption of numbing drugs. It seems
that antidepressants have become very popular. Were humans meant
to thrive on medication? Drugs are aliens introduced into the body;
agents who are told: "You solve the problem FOR me (for my body),
I can't do it on my own."]

{The drugs numb the akatharsis and rage. Terrible if you ask me.
Even if treated 'well' in a suburban household, the children feel
unloved - it is a very deep-rooted feeling, too. It never goes away
in them. They often escape by thinking of fantasy, or abstract ideas
if they don't get numb from drugs. I can tell who these kids are
easily: they are always the ones to overly crave attention. E.g.,
a 6-year-old kid diving off a board in a pool has to yell, "Mommy,
look at me, look at me," as if the kid has no life of his own. By
that age he should not be wanting his mom to look at him - and he
should realize she has her own adult friends. The kid doesn't experience
the glory of the dive - he is focused on 'look at me.' The pleasure
of the dive itself off the board into the pool doesn't exist without
'mommy' looking at him. That is a klippoth. Young too. A total klippoth.}

As a developmental neuropsychologist I have devoted a great deal
of study to the peculiar relationship between violence and pleasure.
I am now convinced that the deprivation of physical sensory pleasure
is the principal root cause of violence. Laboratory experiments
with animals show that pleasure and violence have a reciprocal relationship,
that is,the presence of one inhibits the other. [.] A raging,
violent animal will abruptly calm down when electrodes stimulate
the pleasure centers of its brain. [.] Among human beings, a pleasure-prone
personality rarely displays violence or aggressive behaviors, and
a violent personality has little ability to tolerate, experience,
or enjoy sensuously pleasing activities.

{A neurotoxicologist I know would know exactly what chemicals are
produced. E.g., laughter produces an immune response chemically.
But yet through common sense, people know that laughing, happy adults
get sick less often and heal quicker. Common observation has taught
some of us this. It is dogmas such as Christianity that have wiped
out all common sense. Again, you don't need a brain surgeon to tell
you this. My parents would have been able to say it. It's folk knowledge
and it's correct.}

The hypothesis that deprivation of physical pleasure results in
physical violence requires a formal systematic evaluation. [.] Cultural
anthropologists have gathered exactly the data required to examine
this hypothesis for human societies -- and their findings are conveniently
arranged in R. B. Textor's A Cross-Cultural Summary (New
Haven, Conn.: Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) Press, 1967). Textor's
book is basically a research tool for cross-cultural statistical
inquiry. The survey provides some 20,000 statistically significant
correlations from 400 culture samples of primitive societies. [.]
The results clearly indicated that those societies which give their
infants the greatest amount of physical affection were characterized
by low theft, low infant physical pain, low religious activity,
and negligible or absent killing, mutilating, or torturing of the
enemy.

{This is also in
The Male Disease (http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/disea2ed.shtml). Don't be fooled by the title. It's about
two types of society, one with a war ethic and one without.}

The results [.] indicate that societies which inflict pain and
discomfort upon their infants tend to neglect them as well.

{They are unwanted children. Of course, a child born to a woman
who has had no pleasure, in our folklore and in the doctrines, is
a born klippoth. There is no proof, but it was obviously an observation
easily made. It may not have been correct.}

Adult physical violence was accurately predicted in 36 of 49 cultures
(73 percent) from the infant physical affection variable. The probability
that a 73 percent rate of accuracy could occur by chance is only
four times out of a thousand.

Of the 49 societies studied, 13 cultures seemed to be exceptions
to the theory that a lack of somatosensory pleasure makes people
physically violent. [.] Consequently, it is meaningful to examine
the sexual behaviors of the 13 cultures whose adult violence was
not predictable from physical pleasure during infancy.

When the six societies characterized by both high infant affection
and high violence are compared in terms of their premarital sexual
behavior, it is surprising to find that five of them exhibit premarital
sexual repression, where virginity is a high value of these cultures.
It appears that the beneficial effects of infant physical affection
can be negated by the repression of physical pleasure (premarital
sex) later in life.

[When is 'later in life'? At any rate, this is the pubescent stage:
when nature indicates that bodies are fertile and ready for mating.
This has great implications for states and nations that worship
a high age of consent, ranking any and all sexual activity below
that arbitrary age, regardless of the context, as 'statutory rape'
and punishing it as real rape would be punished.]

{Those nations are malicious. Filled with klippothic malice-filled
people. The females in puberty learn to distrust males who are 'out
to take from them like thieves' and the males learn to disrespect
women and develop a dualistic mindset: whore or virgin. The conflict
arises when the male realizes that mother had babies. This is 'macho'
culture garbage. The males are hostile toward their own penises
then, they desire women but after having sex regard the woman as
ruined. That's sick. How did the woman get ruined? He stuck his
penis in her? That's a sick idea. But it is brainwashed into the
teens of these 'macho' cultures. Such men harbor hate/fear of the
actual desire itself, the desire that a woman's presence causes.
It is as if women have a kind of power. They fear letting go and
submitting to that desire and learn to hate the desire to 'possess
the woman - who might reject them' (fear again). It is logical for
such males to band together and make laws that prevent women from
rejecting them! Another way is to ensure that women have nothing
to compare them to: cult of virginity is born. If the only shoes
you ever wore were shit, and you never tried on any other shoes,
you learn to live with shitty shoes. That's how it works.}

The seven societies characterized by both low infant physical affection
and low adult physical violence were all found to be characterized
by permissive premarital sexual behaviors. Thus, the detrimental
effects of infant physical affectional deprivation seem to be compensated
for later in life by sexual body pleasure experiences during adolescence.

[Obviously, 'as well as' is better than 'either, or'; see further
down for statistical corroboration.]

{I find it almost amusing that studies have to be done on this
when it's all so damned obvious to me. I could have predicted it
for them! No studies at all. It's common sense! Another exception
to the rule is American blacks. High affection and early sexual
experiences. But they are an internal colony of people living here,
encircled by white people whom they hate! Their gang culture is
beyond anything anyone can imagine. The first 7 or 8 years are crucial
for the development of logic - somatic markers must guide the logic,
and the instinct has to have guided the somatic markers early on.
This is developmental neurology.}

In short, violence may stem from deprivation of somatosensory pleasure
either in infancy or in adolescence. The only true exception in
this culture sample is the headhunting Jivaro tribe of South America.
[.] The Jivaro belief system may play an important role, for as
anthropologist Michael Harner notes in Jivaro Souls, these
Indians have a "deep-seated belief that killing leads to the acquisition
of souls which provide a supernatural power conferring immunity
from death."

{Question this: why would human beings come to believe something
as absurd as this? The belief itself is crazy.}

The percent likelihood of a society being physically violent if
it is physically affectionate toward its infants and tolerant
of premarital sexual behavior is 2 percent (48/49). The probability
of this relationship occurring by chance is 125,000 to one.

[A]dditional clusters of relationships link the punishment and
repression of premarital sex to large community size, high social
complexity and class stratification, small extended families, purchase
of wives, practice of slavery, and a high god present in human morality.

{Agrarian societies.}

[The three highest correlative percentages are: social complexity
is high (87%), sex disability is high (83%) and high god in human
morality (81%). Also interesting: community size is larger (73%).
This supports my theory that large societies are breeding grounds
for corruption and repression, due to impersonal politics and the
development of elaborate bureaucracy. Federal elections in the US,
for instance, have nothing to do with democracy. They are bought
and won by corporations, not people.]

The relationship between small extended families and punitive premarital
sex attitudes deserves emphasis, for it suggests that the nuclear
Western cultures [where parents-child(ren)-type families are regarded
as discrete groups] may be a contributing factor to our repressive
attitudes toward sexual expression. The same can be suggested for
community size, social complexity, and class stratification.

Not surprisingly, when high self-needs are combined with the deprivation
of physical affection, the result is self-interest and high rates
of narcissism. Likewise, exhibitionistic dancing and pornography
may be interpreted as a substitute for normal sexual expression.
Some nations which are most repressive of female sexuality have
rich pornographic art forms.

[Consider also that a lot of art is melancholy in nature: a creative
sublimation of substantial depression.]

{You can always know what a society is like by looking at the gods
they invent.}

According to FBI statistics, both murder and aggravated assault
increased 53 percent between 1967 and 1972, while forcible rape
rose 70 percent.

[The following are my calculations. FBI statistics indicate an
approximate 90 percent increase of forcible rape (not including
non-forcible statutory rape) between 1972 and 1999. Murder and nonnegligent
(willful) manslaughter decreased by approximately 17 percent between
these years, and aggravated assault (nonlethal attacks that could
have resulted in murder) increased by approximately 133 percent
between the same years.]

{These stats do not take into consideration that 12 percent of
the American society (blacks) commit 90 percent (more or less) of
this kind of very violent crime! Keep in mind that out of
all blacks, it is still a small minority of them that behave this
way. And these blacks have high touchy-feely affection with
mothers and early sexual relations. Their culture is almost matriarchal
with mothers and grandmothers at home, and roving criminal bands
of males (in inner cities). Again, they are an internal colony,
strictly speaking. But it's their behavior plus the other factors
that throw these studies off. They possibly are ill-equipped, as
tropically evolved people, to deal with the complexities of modern
society. Meanwhile - this data is thrown off by blacks in England,
Germany, France and pure Africans in Scandinavians countries now.
They are nothing like the American blacks. So what is the one thing
that is different about American blacks? They are mixed with Irish.
Irish are people with highest rates of inherited schizophrenia,
gene for alcoholism (which also makes them crave the alcohol) and
they are 'full of fight' with eeny weeny peenies (the Irish curse,
some call it). Irish women have no idea what an orgasm is. That's
not just common street knowledge; it was also shown by a sexologist
who compared Irish to Polynesians. Blacks in the USA are part Irish
- and every single one of the violent types is part Irish. Blacks
in the USA throw the stats off when it comes to early close nurturing
and early sex plus their insane violence and 'acting out' with well-known
intolerable behaviors. No one considers the Irish admixture. I think
they should.}

In addition to our rape statistics, there is other evidence that
points to preference for sexual violence over sexual pleasure in
the United States. This is reflected in our acceptance of sexually
explicit films that involve violence and rape, and our rejection
of sexually explicit films for pleasure only (pornography). [.]
Apparently, sex with pleasure is immoral and unacceptable, but sex
with violence and pain is moral and acceptable.

{Stats leave out this too: lots of sex here, hardly any orgasms
- among a lot of the whites, that is. The women come to regard it
as a chore. The worst thing is, they never tell the men. They lie.
So 'all women lie to men' becomes a true statement. It is true:
for them. Not for blacks. Black women let men know if they are garbage
and kick them out of the bedroom.}

A questionnaire I developed to explore this question was administered
to 96 college students whose average age was 19 years. The results
of the questionnaire support the connection between rejection of
physical pleasure (and particularly of premarital and extramarital
sex) with expression of physical violence.

Respondents who reject abortion, responsible premarital sex, and
nudity within the family were likely to approve of harsh physical
punishment for children and to believe that pain helps build strong
moral character. These respondents were likely to find alcohol and
drugs more satisfying than sex. The data obtained from the questionnaire
provide strong statistical support for the basic inverse relationship
between physical violence and physical pleasure.

Another way of looking at the reciprocal relationship between violence
and pleasure is to examine a society's choice of drugs. A society
will support behaviors that are consistent with its values and social
mores. U.S. society is a competitive, aggressive, and violent society.
Consequently, it supports drugs that facilitate competitive, aggressive,
and violent behaviors and opposes drugs that counteract such behaviors.
Alcohol is well known to facilitate the expression of violent behaviors,
and, although addicting and very harmful to chronic users, is acceptable
to U.S. society. Marijuana, on the other hand, is an active pleasure-inducing
drug which enhances the pleasure of touch and actively inhibits
violent-aggressive behaviors. [.] For similar reasons heroin is
rejected and methadone (an addicting drug minus the pleasure) is
accepted.

{I have to disagree. I (and all those I associate with and know
well) can get drunk: I get very silly but I'm still the same person.
I tried pot one time, when it first came around in the 1960s and
was not even illegal as far as I knew; people were smoking it out
in the open on the street. One puff. It put me to sleep - it was
a waste of time since it made me not-alert. It did not do anything
positive for me at all and I'd never bother with it again, never
did even when it wasn't illegal. It sucked! However, I'll drink
when I go out to clubs. That never made me violent. As I said, I
tend to get silly very easily. I mean laughing. This data is invalid
since these drugs act differently on different people. Irish are
known to get very mean and violent when they drink. Italians don't,
they tend to get in the mood to dance and touch more, they get all
lovey-dovey. In my opinion, Irish are genetically prone to this
unacceptable behavior. E.g., due to their tenacious, repeated provocation
of the Romans, the Romans became warlike and ended up a military
might. If not for the Celtics, this never would have happened. The
Irish are well known for this kind of "full of fight for the
sheer sake of fighting" behavior.}

Animals deprived of touching early in life develop impaired pain
perception and an aversion to being touched by others. They are
thus blocked from experiencing the body-pleasure therapy that they
need for rehabilitation. In this condition, they have few alternatives
but physical violence, where pain-oriented touching and body contact
is facilitated by their impaired ability to experience pain. Thus,
physical violence and physical pain become therapies of choice for
those deprived of physical pleasure.

If we accept the theory that the lack of sufficient somatosensory
pleasure is a principal cause of violence, we can work toward promoting
pleasure and encouraging affectionate interpersonal relationships
as a means of combatting aggression.

[Accept this theory? Somato-Sensory Deprivation was abbreviated
SAD. Along came Seasonal Affective Disorder in 1988, and the abbreviation
for Prescott's neglected theory had to be changed; it is now (not)
known as S-SAD.]

{His theory is not neglected. I see it all the time in popular
books which are more important since they get information out to
the public directly. Parental love and affection are encouraged.}

[The theory is certainly under attack. For one, while non-sexual
parental intimacy is thought of as important, youth sexual intimacy
is abhorred (remember age of consent laws). Also, even in Holland,
there has been a trend for years that parents, teachers, relatives
and anyone dealing with kids are afraid to touch them, lest they
be accused of 'child sexual abuse'. There are reports in the papers
of primary school teachers who declare that they refuse to take
children in their laps to comfort them because of society's sex
abuse and smut scandal obsession. The eighties and nineties were
marked by many absurd lawsuits, accusations of mass sexual abuse,
and long prison sentences when there was not a strand of proof and
the only explanation was anti-sexual, anti-affection mass hysteria
and gleeful malice. Children were anally probed in foul, abusive
attempts to determine non-existent abuse. Theories such as 'recovered
memory syndrome' and 'being in denial' sprang up, as well as such
unreliable anti-sexual methods as the 'anatomically correct doll'.
It was tied in with Satanism, because smut can never be smutty enough:
hence non-existent 'Satanic ritual abuse'. Such cases of mass hysteria
occurred, and still occur (in modified but essentially similar forms),
in the Netherlands and other Western countries. A child will certainly
still be taught (especially these days) that the genital area is
forbidden terrain, for themselves and others to touch. This stays
with them as teenagers, as adults. It causes immeasurable psychological
damage, which is brain damage. Children who play sexual games with
one another are sometimes punished as sex criminals, and indeed,
it seems that in some cases the sexual acts are performed in a coercive
way by older children on younger children. Yes, minors will find
their way to sex - to the ENTIRE body of themselves and others -
one way or the other: any way a society will have it. Society blames
it on the evil they hold sexuality to be, whereas the true problematic
factors are violent and coercive behavior, whether or not sexual
conduct is involved. But because people blame it on sex and physical
intimacy, all attention is directed to repressing and punishing
sex and intimacy (which sabotage the persecutors get off on), which
in turn (according to S-SAD) leads to violence-prone dispositions
and fucked-up aggressive sexuality. It is a vicious circle of destruction.]

We should give high priority to body pleasure in the context of
meaningful human relationships. Such body pleasure is very different
from promiscuity, which reflects a basic inability to experience
pleasure. If a sexual relationship is not pleasurable, the individual
looks for another partner. A continuing failure to find sexual satisfaction
leads to a continuing search for new partners, that is, to promiscuous
behavior. Affectionately shared physical pleasure, on the other
hand, tends to stabilize a relationship and eliminate the search.
However, a variety of sexual experiences seems to be normal in cultures
which permit its expression, and this may be important for optimizing
pleasure and affection in sexual relationships.

{This flies in the face of the gay bathhouse culture: they have
300 partners a week, and they definitely do have orgasms. Perhaps
it's a parasite that causes this behavior?.}

[Many people restrict and oppose sexuality and affection, and research
related to it, by proposing the threat of unbridled lasciviousness
(as though rape isn't lascivious). While (excessive) pornography
is in itself a substitute for the real thing, the US President's
Commission on Obscenity and Pornography concluded in 1970 that there
was little empirical evidence to declare that exposure to sexually
explicit materials is associated with the causation of delinquent
or criminal behavior among youth and adults (Scott and Cuvelier,
1993). Regardless, the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations
campaigned and acted severely against pornography.]

Available data clearly indicate that the rigid values of monogamy,
chastity, and virginity help produce physical violence. The denial
of female sexuality must give way to an acceptance and respect for
it, and men must share with women the responsibility for giving
affection and care to infants and children.

About 25 percent of marriages in the United States now end in divorce,
and an even higher percentage of couples have experienced extramarital
affairs.

{1 in 4 marriages end in divorce within 4 years, yes. But what
about in 10 years? 20 years?}

[In 1997, the likelihood of new US marriages ending in divorce
was 43 percent; source: http://www.divorcemagazine.com.]

This suggests that something is basically wrong with the traditional
concept of universal monogamy. When viewed in connection with the
cross-cultural evidence of the physical deprivations, violence,
and warfare associated with monogamy, the need to create a more
pluralistic system of marriage becomes clear.

{Here is an independent idea: men and women that used to get along
in many ways, marriages lasted, healthy happy kids, all that, the
husband and wife often had their own separate rooms to sleep in
- and I mean sleep. Sleeping, dreaming, undisturbed by being woken
up by snoring, or movement of the other person in the bed. Deprive
a person of meaningful deep sleep and, especially, keep waking a
person up during dreaming stage, and you will be guaranteed to get
fighting couples and divorce! No one ever figured that out yet.
I predicted that some people I know would start to fight when they
shared the bed for sleep. Was I right? Hell, yes. Prior to that,
they were the perfect couple. They had their own private contained
rooms for quality, undisturbed sleep time. Hell, one way to disorient
a person is to wake them up when they start to dream. That's a very
light state of sleeping - and one is easily awakened from it by
a partner turning or snoring.}

Contemporary experiments with communal living and group marriage
are attempting to meet basic needs that remain unfulfilled in the
isolation of a nuclear marriage. We must seriously consider new
options, such as extended families comprised of two or three couples
who share values and lifestyles. By sharing the benefits and responsibilities
of child rearing, such families could provide an affectionate and
varied environment for children as well as adults, and thereby reduce
the incidence of child abuse and runaways.

The family bath should be large enough to accommodate parents and
children, and be equipped with a whirlpool to maximize relaxation
and pleasure.

We should recognize that sexuality in teenagers is not only natural,
but desirable, and accept premarital sexuality as a positive moral
good.

[This urgent recommendation is diametrically opposed to the craven
moronic cop-out slogan of 'consenting ADULTS' (+18), especially
despicable when uttered by gays or Satanists. In 1945, psychiatrist
Wilhelm Reich wrote: "If so many adolescents are not consciously
ready for sexual intercourse, this is not, as is erroneously assumed,
an expression of biological immaturity but a consequence of an education
which suppresses all thoughts of such activity. It is important
to establish this fact if one wants to see things as they are, and
not as authoritarian society and the Church of Satan would like
us to see them." Well, he wrote "the Church", but you get my drift.
(The Sexual Revolution, translation of Therese Pol.) Note
also that 'patriarchy' is not the dominance of males. It is the
dominance of ADULT males.]

Parents should help teenagers realize their own sexual selfhood
by allowing them to use the family home for sexual fulfillment.
Such honesty would encourage a more mature attitude toward sexual
relationships and provide a private supportive environment that
is far better for their development than the back seat of a car
or other undesirable locations outside the home. Early sexual experiences
are too often an attempt to prove one's adulthood and maleness or
femaleness rather than a joyful sharing of affection and pleasure.

The use of sex to provide mere release from physiological tension
(apparent pleasure) should not be confused with a state of sensual
pleasure which is incompatible with dominance, power, aggression,
violence, and pain.

It needs to be emphasized here that I advocate somatosensory pleasure
stimulation as a therapeutic procedure to correct the abnormalities
due to somatosensory pleasure deprivation. [.] The success of somatosensory
therapy in isolation reared monkeys reported by Harry F. Harlow
and Stephen Suomi ("Social Rehabilitation of Isolate-Reared Monkeys,"
Developmental Psychology, 6 (1972), 487-496) when other forms
of therapy have failed in these animals, provide further encouragement
and support for the utilization of touch and body movement therapies
in the treatment of emotional disorders.

On the contrary, our prisons have been designed to maximize those
conditions that are responsible for the violence and imprisonment
of the social offender.

{The gulag system did not do this. Totally different. There, people
worked (and got paid too). Remember, the work you do also defines
you and your attitudes.}

The reciprocal relationship between pleasure and violence is such
that one inhibits the other; when physical pleasure is high, physical
violence is low. When violence is high, pleasure is low. This basic
premise of the somatosensory pleasure deprivation theory provides
us with the tools necessary to fashion a world of peaceful, affectionate,
cooperative individuals.

{Take into consideration also: violent rage can arise when someone
else who is rage-prone keeps bothering a person who is not rage-prone.
Eventually, you want to exterminate that person. I know exactly
what that feels like. I explode - and then it's gone and inner peace
returns. You then have to factor in violence when it is 'justified'.
That is, when a violence-prone person keeps provoking a peace-prone
person. Most often, the peace-prone person uses a bomb to kill an
ant, metaphorically. When a peaceful and well-adjusted, very smart
college kid was tormented by jocks in a college, typically malice
driven people, people who loved conflict, the peaceful person eventually
put a bomb in the locker room and murdered them all. I say that
his action was justified. The courts disagreed. People who love
their peace are capable of definitive and final acts of retaliation
they use to eliminate the pest - for good. I am 100 percent in favor
of that.}

[James W. Prescott, Ph.D. is a developmental neuropsychologist
and cross-cultural psychologist. He was Health Scientist Administrator,
Developmental Behavioral Biology Program, National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda, MD; Director, Institute of Humanistic Science and of BioBehavioral
Systems. For an up-to-date curriculum vitae and for the story of
today's repression of essential research for the sake of the parasitic
continuation of government-sponsored inhumanity, see http://www.violence.de (http://www.violence.de/)]

Postscript by Tani Jantsang

My two cents from common culture: babies, when born, are all sensual,
but they have no sense of 'self - notself' yet. They see expressions
and live in a tactile world. Exposing them to lots of visual stimuli
and being near them a lot is normal for us. They do not, at first,
know there is a difference when they touch Self, versus when they
touch Mom, or the sheet, or a stuffed toy. Soon after, they get
explorative, but they stick to the mother. The father is there too,
but he's not where the food comes from (breast). This continues
until the age of 2 or 3 in us, definitely more so at age 3. At 3,
the child squirms out of mom's arms, the child wants to be left
alone to run and play. He is loosening the bonds at this time. The
child learns to interact with other children. The normal child does
not feel the need to 'show the parents' every little kid thing he/she
does either. They color in coloring books, and are in a world of
their own, no need to show anyone; they might share it with their
other kid friends. Older, 5, 6, 7, 8, more physical activities,
they play like wild animals, running, or 'ball type' games or 'tag,'
they develop tendon strength and an ability to play in teams with
strategies. They get very motor-coordinated at this time. They invent
games. 9 and 10, more contemplative, now more curious about adult
things, cooking, building, things like that - they like to play
still, but less so. There seems to be NO real 'concern' over the
gender yet, kid friends are boys and girls. It doesn't matter. Girls
and boys are equally strong too, at these younger ages. They are
both agile, both able to play as rough as each other. Puberty, 11,
12, 13, that age (when puberty comes): they desire sex and they
are quite adult in outlook. They are able to baby-sit for other
babies now. This was the norm. Boys become markedly stronger at
this time. They both (male/female) mature quickly, mentally they
have logic and are capable of making valid decisions. They have
no problem checking with adults if they are not sure, to learn from
those with experience.

I had a bank account when I was 9. I had money in it, about 500
dollars saved up from chores, baby-sitting, things like that, mostly
from helping someone build something, like a screened porch, furniture,
etc; helping them paint, etc. That was a lot of money in 1959. I
know Americans who don't have an account and they are 21. They are
retarded. But they are also the norm. Western culture not only does
what the Prescott essay says, but it RETARDS the people in that
culture. As far as their being able to think strategically - they
are BEYOND retarded. I can explain a child's strategy to them, and
they are mystified. And I was explaining it to a person that is
considered 'reasonably intelligent.' Standards.

The stupidest thing people do is 'adjust their standards' depending
on whether or not the person is a friend. They'll invent excuses
for blatantly stupid and provocatory behavior; but find ways to
judge a person for RETALIATING. That shows a lack of objectivity.
Their inability to look at themselves is astonishing. Their lack
of ability, completely, to assess themselves, when it is even blatantly
obvious to a person with a degree in psychology, is pathetic. The
trick is this also: do these rage-filled people, having buried that
rage, REALIZE they feel this, even when objective circumstances
would point to the FACT that they MUST feel it? No, they are incapable
of 'knowing' this. That is anosognosic. They don't know what they
feel. Or they might get a glimmer of it, but then they'll forget
it immediately (bury it deeper). The next thing that happens is
that they drift off into what I call incoherence: though it might
SOUND coherent. They squirm off the topic or hurl insults. Any kind
of insults. Accusing a person of having apoE4/4 now becomes an insult.
Accusing them of having Borna, becomes an insult? Why? because the
person can't deal with the FACTS? He doesn't want to.

So, Prescott is presenting his essay to the very people he's writing
about IN his essay! This is a problem. He presented this to the
atomic scientists? Sheesh. It all boils down to this: peaceful people
have to become murderers in order to prevent murderers from destroying
their peace. ! :) Since agriculture and the need to fend off outside
predators in the wild by building a stationary army qualified to
do this, turning the defenses to other humans that are not agricultural,
turning to attack 'other humans and animals' for more space, you
have this violence-prone, aggressive-repressive male-dominated society.
You have what you see today. Same show - more complex - but
the same show.

There are two types of things: there are (1) malice-filled people
who go out of their way to provoke (2) others who are doing their
own things; there's no reason they are doing it either, they are
NOT trying, for instance, to steal something. They keep provoking
as the Celts did to the Romans, for NO REASON other than the desire
to provoke. Ultimately, it is ALL psycho-sexual. You have that aggressive-repressive
'type' versus the easy-going 'type' that has had provocation up
to his neck. So he in turn goes after the provoker and ALL WHO SUPPORT
HIM and drives him out - just as the Romans finally drove the Celts
off the entire European continent.

[And concentrated them in Britain. Whence they spread to America.]

Prescott's data doesn't analyze the mid to eastern cultures and
nations. Lots of maternal love, early sexuality too - but filled
with strongly patriarchal persecution and Moslem religion or Hindu
(some cults notably in the South); insanely persecutory against
females. Again, they are agrarian; even if they later became nomadic
as Semite Arabs did, they WERE agrarian before that. Prescott doesn't
take into account that tropically evolved people (and by evolved,
I mean maybe only 1000 years of living, breeding and eating in tropical
environments) are not adapted to temperate climates and industrial
cultures. Most of the time, tropical people seem "stupid"
to those from more northern climes. He doesn't factor in metabolism
- DIET. A neurotox 'expert' I know would reduce it to apoE4/4 but
aha. I'm a curious person and used to work in epidemiology. Samples
were taken due to clusters of kidney problems of all things! So
I found them. I located some people testing for this - some are
smart, some are normal. By normal, I mean typically DUH American.
And then there is someone who suffered kidney failure in her 20s.
She was tested - and was apoE 2/2. She was rather dumb, all things
considered. Bye-bye, reductionism.

There are also all kinds of intelligence. As I said, in my culture,
'motor-retarded people' or 'clumsy klutzes' are considered retarded.
The Masons I went to school with seem to have the same idea on that.
There is strategic thinking - that is cunning and is not measured
on IQ tests. And so forth.

What started all of it? Agriculture. What will end it? The end
of agriculture. New modes of producing food - AND energy. That will
end it. What will we end up with? I don't know. Will we as a species
even 'end up?' I don't know. Quite frankly: can I walk to the store
and get what I want? Are my favorite TV shows on? Can I go to the
beach? If my VCR breaks, can I easily go out and buy another one?
These are the things REALLY important to me - in terms of real-life,
activity, deeds. The rest is intellectual fun for me. Nothing more!
I may have written all those articles, but in real life - I don't
care about it at all. It doesn't affect me AT ALL. We got ultra
Christians in power now in the USA. So what. They might make gays
illegal and outlaw abortion. So what, I'm not gay and I never wanted
an abortion - I wanted my kids and had them on purpose. They want
to ban porno. So what - I never was interested it in - it's boring.
I'm sad that Voyager Star Trek is in its last season. I get mad
when sports shows preempt my favorite show. I don't like how they
keep changing the time and day slots for favorite shows. Do you
see what I mean here? I have a lot of time to look into the fish
tank and analyze the fish. Ultimately, I don't associate with the
fish - never did. It doesn't affect me.

There was also a study I heard about that was commissioned by the
government. I know a very little bit about it and that, from second
hand. It had to do with pheromones and ribosomes. That's the word
the lab guy said: ribosomes. Apparently, a tilt in population to
'overpopulation' causes all this craziness we see now, including
the violence. Now get this, ELIMINATION of 90 percent of the population
did NOT alter the effects! This is bad. I heard this in the 1970s!
It had specifically to do with PHEROMONES and how they do 'something'
to genes? or directly affect behavior. That's all I know. I heard
it second-hand from the guy helping the scientist. I asked at the
med school where I worked about the connection - at the time, NOBODY
knew what this could be - but Dr. N---- knew quite a bit about pheromones.
What behaviors they would MAKE you do - are obligatory. Suppression
of the urges based on this, causes stress. I do not mean sexual
attraction. I mean pheromones can make you HATE, make you want to
wipe out an entire group of people. Pheromones can cause amity or
enmity. The feelings are OBLIGATORY. No matter how much you suppress
them in the name of 'civilized behavior', the feelings are THERE.
I have never seen anything else regarding this subject.